January 30, 2015, 11:32:31 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - tomscott

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 44
271
Canon General / Re: TEN YEARS FROM NOW.
« on: November 25, 2013, 07:01:29 PM »
I don't think still photography will be anywhere near like it is now.

I think video will get so good that we will be taking high resolution stills, meaning if your a commercial photographer you will never miss a moment and can freeze that perfect moment.

Its already starting and will change the industry.

272
Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: November 07, 2013, 10:03:09 AM »
Looks really impressive and thinking of pulling the trigger. But with so many different names its hard to figure out which is which. Here in the UK its branded under Rokinon but in other samyang etc. Read a few other reviews which claim the lens isn't really much of a performer.

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2012/07/18/rokinon-14mm-f2-8-review/

But on thedigitalpicture the lens comparison to the 16-35mm is that it is a tad softer.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=769&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

I know were talking huge price difference but you also get autofocus and the the fact the canon is also a zoom. For the amount I would use a wide angle I think I would rather spend the extra and get the canon branded zoom… Any thoughts?

I was out the other night and only having 24mm is very limiting and vertical panoramas the only answer.

Not bad for the 24-105mm tho.


Hallin Fell, Ullswater Cumbria, starscape by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Been itching for a FF wide angle for ages after selling my 10-22mm but just can't decide. Always wanted the 16-35mm but have been put off by internet claims. A cheap lens with good IQ is a no brainer but I think I would use an AF lens more and the zoom is more versatile.



273
Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: November 07, 2013, 08:02:27 AM »

274
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: October 31, 2013, 09:20:00 PM »
Thanks guys.

The sun was so strong the image naturally silhouettes. Leaving it there to me was the only way to edit the images. Recovering more would lead to a less dramatic image  :)

Technically maybe not perfect but artistic licence sometimes over rights the technical.

277
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: October 16, 2013, 05:11:43 AM »

Sunset over Blencathra by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Sunset over Blencathra, Cumbria, UK.

5DMKIII 70-200mm L MkI F16

278
Lenses / Re: Will the 28-300L be upgraded??
« on: September 30, 2013, 11:51:15 AM »
Its a lens I have always been curious about, seems a good deal I like the 24-105mm IQ.

But I cant see it being a good travel companion its too big, heavy and conspicuous.

Although the weight difference between it and a 24-70/70/300mm combo isnt a lot, the weight is more widespread across the body as one will most likely be in a bag compared to say the 28-300mm sitting by your side all day even on a black rapid strap.

I would like to have a go with one, but for the price I would prefer to have the dedicated lenses.

Also it could be a good candidate to update, there are much better weight saving materials now and better elements but price would def shoot up and its expensive enough now lol

279
Lenses / Re: digitalrev return policy
« on: September 24, 2013, 07:54:21 AM »
When I dealt with them they were fine. But they have a UK office you can deal with. No probs with the service at all.

280
Street & City / Re: London Night-Scape
« on: September 15, 2013, 05:18:37 PM »
Yep the sign was deliberate otherwise its just another pic of big ben.

I had no problem what so ever with full tripod etc but I was on the bridge, had lots of people coming to talk to me which was nice although because of that took much longer to get the pics lol

282
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 03:03:45 PM »
The Tokina 16-28mm

heres two reviews one vs the 16-35 by Dave Dugdale

Canon 16-35mm II vs Tokina 16-28mm Lens Review

one from matt granger vs the nikon 16-24mm

Tokina 16-28mm VS Nikon 14-24mm - LENS SHOOT OUT!

The Tokina is very sharp for its price! Shame its not weather sealed neither does it take filters but vs the 16-35mm its a no brainer its half the price, especially for a specialist lens for most people.

283
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 11:18:36 AM »
The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.

Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.

284
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: September 08, 2013, 05:42:43 PM »
Few from me, I practically live on a lake so most of mine involve water.

I'll have a couple of overnight stops on Ullswater in a few weeks, so it's good to see these. The place I'm staying has a shot of the Yacht Club pier (I think it was in reception), but I've never worked out how to get down there or if there is public access.

Ye its just Ullswater Yacht Club, its not public access but as long as your not doing anything you shouldn't its fine, when I took those it was out of yacht season so was like a ghost town.

TBF its not the best pier on Ullswater because you cant really see down the lake, but it was such a stunning sunset earlier on in the year and It was the closest best pier to me in the time I had the sunset so I couldn't resist :)

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 44